Main Nav

I want to preference my question here with a couple of quick notes...

(a) Although I've been following the MOOC trend fairly closely and spent time "observing" the MITx Circuits course, I'm still very much a "learner" in this domain.

(b) Although I think there are possibly more questions than answers when it comes to MOOCs, I find some of the things they are doing very interesting/exciting and I'm also VERY happy to see higher education experiment with new models.

My understanding (but those with more experience should certainly correct me) is that the original concept of Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) was really about creating learning communities that would openly share knowledge and work as a community to create and participate in a common learning experience.  Wikipedia notes (citing several sources) that there are four core principles associated with MOOCs, which are:

(1) The first principle is aggregation. The whole point of a MOOC is to provide a starting point for a massive amount of content to be produced in different places online, which is later aggregated as a newsletter or a web page accessible to participants on a regular basis. This is in contrast to traditional courses, where the content is prepared ahead of time.
(2) The second principle is remixing, that is, associating materials created within the course with each other and with materials elsewhere.
(3) The third principle is re-purposing of aggregated and remixed materials to suit goals of each participant.
(4) The fourth principle is feeding forward, that is, sharing of re-purposed ideas and content with other participants and the rest of the world.

[more details and citations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course]

When one considers these four principles they seem to center around, at least for me, core concepts that closely align with things such as Open Educational Resources and the other "flavors" of openness which have been developing over the past decade or so.  For example, these principles focus on things such as:  (a) content is produced as part of the course, not prepared ahead of time; (b) content is remixed, both within the course and with content outside the course;  and (c) content, particularly remixed and re-purposed content, is shared among participants and, importantly, with the rest of the world.

As I explored the Coursera site and considered signing up for a course I decided to take a look (as I'm sure we all do ;-)) at the Terms of Service (https://www.coursera.org/about/terms) and was a little surprised to see the following:

"All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws....You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you."

In addition, they note the following related to user materials that are submitted to courses:

"With respect to User Content you submit or otherwise make available in connection with your use of the Site, and subject to the Privacy Policy, you grant Coursera and the Participating Institutions a fully transferable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, sublicense, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such User Content."

Now, I'm sure there are good legal reasons to have such statements but, at least for me, they raised some big questions about whether some of the really powerful learning that I've associated with MOOCs will come out of Coursera courses if the ability to remix and share content is limited (I'll also admit to being a little surprised that what I submit seems, if I'm reading it correct, to be then owned by Coursera).   From my participating in MOOCs I've found the contributions of students, including content they develop, and how that content is remixed to be integral to the learning experience.  If that is removed will the learning experience be the same?   I've also felt that a powerful outcome of MOOCs could be the establishment of a sustainable learning community that would "survive" the course and continue to engage in learning together...but I wonder if that would happen without the open sharing and remixing of content?

Again, I am a big fan of change in higher education and I think Coursera and other similar ventures are driving change in good and interesting ways.  I'm also excited about the conversation that these ventures are simulating.  I'm just wondering if what was originally a very open model for learning is morphing into something that is more closed and what the implications for such a shift might be with regards to learning.  Ultimately, I think there is a big question about whether initiatives like Coursera are truly creating new powerful models for learning or if we are simply creating "massive online courses" (dropping the open) and from our experience with those in the late 1990's I'm not sure it will result in the level of change we might all desire.

I'd love to hear other opinions and thoughts.

Josh
-----------------------------
Joshua Baron
Senior Academic Technology Officer
Marist College
Poughkeepsie, New York  12601
(845) 575-3623 (work)
Twitter: JoshBaron ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Comments

Note:  Sorry for the cross posting, a few people suggested that I post this to this list in addition to the CIO list where it was posted last week.

I want to preference my question here with a couple of quick notes...

(a) Although I've been following the MOOC trend fairly closely and spent time "observing" the MITx Circuits course, I'm still very much a "learner" in this domain.

(b) Although I think there are possibly more questions than answers when it comes to MOOCs, I find some of the things they are doing very interesting/exciting and I'm also VERY happy to see higher education experiment with new models.

My understanding (but those with more experience should certainly correct me) is that the original concept of Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) was really about creating learning communities that would openly share knowledge and work as a community to create and participate in a common learning experience.  Wikipedia notes (citing several sources) that there are four core principles associated with MOOCs, which are:

(1) The first principle is aggregation. The whole point of a MOOC is to provide a starting point for a massive amount of content to be produced in different places online, which is later aggregated as a newsletter or a web page accessible to participants on a regular basis. This is in contrast to traditional courses, where the content is prepared ahead of time.
(2) The second principle is remixing, that is, associating materials created within the course with each other and with materials elsewhere.
(3) The third principle is re-purposing of aggregated and remixed materials to suit goals of each participant.
(4) The fourth principle is feeding forward, that is, sharing of re-purposed ideas and content with other participants and the rest of the world.

[more details and citations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course]

When one considers these four principles they seem to center around, at least for me, core concepts that closely align with things such as Open Educational Resources and the other "flavors" of openness which have been developing over the past decade or so.  For example, these principles focus on things such as:  (a) content is produced as part of the course, not prepared ahead of time; (b) content is remixed, both within the course and with content outside the course;  and (c) content, particularly remixed and re-purposed content, is shared among participants and, importantly, with the rest of the world.

As I explored the Coursera site and considered signing up for a course I decided to take a look (as I'm sure we all do ;-)) at the Terms of Service (https://www.coursera.org/about/terms) and was a little surprised to see the following:

"All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws....You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you."

In addition, they note the following related to user materials that are submitted to courses:

"With respect to User Content you submit or otherwise make available in connection with your use of the Site, and subject to the Privacy Policy, you grant Coursera and the Participating Institutions a fully transferable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, sublicense, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such User Content."

Now, I'm sure there are good legal reasons to have such statements but, at least for me, they raised some big questions about whether some of the really powerful learning that I've associated with MOOCs will come out of Coursera courses if the ability to remix and share content is limited (I'll also admit to being a little surprised that what I submit seems, if I'm reading it correct, to be then owned by Coursera).   From my participating in MOOCs I've found the contributions of students, including content they develop, and how that content is remixed to be integral to the learning experience.  If that is removed will the learning experience be the same?   I've also felt that a powerful outcome of MOOCs could be the establishment of a sustainable learning community that would "survive" the course and continue to engage in learning together...but I wonder if that would happen without the open sharing and remixing of content?

Again, I am a big fan of change in higher education and I think Coursera and other similar ventures are driving change in good and interesting ways.  I'm also excited about the conversation that these ventures are simulating.  I'm just wondering if what was originally a very open model for learning is morphing into something that is more closed and what the implications for such a shift might be with regards to learning.  Ultimately, I think there is a big question about whether initiatives like Coursera are truly creating new powerful models for learning or if we are simply creating "massive online courses" (dropping the open) and from our experience with those in the late 1990's I'm not sure it will result in the level of change we might all desire.

I'd love to hear other opinions and thoughts.

Josh
-----------------------------
Joshua Baron
Senior Academic Technology Officer
Marist College
Poughkeepsie, New York  12601
(845) 575-3623 (work)
Twitter: JoshBaron ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

" I'd love to hear other opinions and thoughts."
 
I'm holding my opinion in reserve given that I've never participated
in a MOOC.  I signed up for 5 CourseEra courses last week -- without a
tuition charge it's like a healthcare plan without any copayment (well
*sort of*).  You can gorge at no personal cost.  BTW, Chuck starts his
Internet History, Technology, and Security course today (I wonder why
I haven't gotten any email reminders about first steps?).  You can
still sign up at:

https://www.coursera.org/course/insidetheinternet

Luke
http://itintheuniversity.blogspot.com


>>> Josh Baron <Josh.Baron@MARIST.EDU> 7/23/2012 7:59 AM >>>
Note:  Sorry for the cross posting, a few people suggested that I post this to this list in addition to the CIO list where it was posted last week.

I want to preference my question here with a couple of quick notes...

(a) Although I've been following the MOOC trend fairly closely and spent time "observing" the MITx Circuits course, I'm still very much a "learner" in this domain.

(b) Although I think there are possibly more questions than answers when it comes to MOOCs, I find some of the things they are doing very interesting/exciting and I'm also VERY happy to see higher education experiment with new models.

My understanding (but those with more experience should certainly correct me) is that the original concept of Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) was really about creating learning communities that would openly share knowledge and work as a community to create and participate in a common learning experience.  Wikipedia notes (citing several sources) that there are four core principles associated with MOOCs, which are:

(1) The first principle is aggregation. The whole point of a MOOC is to provide a starting point for a massive amount of content to be produced in different places online, which is later aggregated as a newsletter or a web page accessible to participants on a regular basis. This is in contrast to traditional courses, where the content is prepared ahead of time.
(2) The second principle is remixing, that is, associating materials created within the course with each other and with materials elsewhere.
(3) The third principle is re-purposing of aggregated and remixed materials to suit goals of each participant.
(4) The fourth principle is feeding forward, that is, sharing of re-purposed ideas and content with other participants and the rest of the world.

[more details and citations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course]

When one considers these four principles they seem to center around, at least for me, core concepts that closely align with things such as Open Educational Resources and the other "flavors" of openness which have been developing over the past decade or so.  For example, these principles focus on things such as:  (a) content is produced as part of the course, not prepared ahead of time; (b) content is remixed, both within the course and with content outside the course;  and (c) content, particularly remixed and re-purposed content, is shared among participants and, importantly, with the rest of the world.

As I explored the Coursera site and considered signing up for a course I decided to take a look (as I'm sure we all do ;-)) at the Terms of Service (https://www.coursera.org/about/terms) and was a little surprised to see the following:

"All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws....You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you."

In addition, they note the following related to user materials that are submitted to courses:

"With respect to User Content you submit or otherwise make available in connection with your use of the Site, and subject to the Privacy Policy, you grant Coursera and the Participating Institutions a fully transferable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, sublicense, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such User Content."

Now, I'm sure there are good legal reasons to have such statements but, at least for me, they raised some big questions about whether some of the really powerful learning that I've associated with MOOCs will come out of Coursera courses if the ability to remix and share content is limited (I'll also admit to being a little surprised that what I submit seems, if I'm reading it correct, to be then owned by Coursera).   From my participating in MOOCs I've found the contributions of students, including content they develop, and how that content is remixed to be integral to the learning experience.  If that is removed will the learning experience be the same?   I've also felt that a powerful outcome of MOOCs could be the establishment of a sustainable learning community that would "survive" the course and continue to engage in learning together...but I wonder if that would happen without the open sharing and remixing of content?

Again, I am a big fan of change in higher education and I think Coursera and other similar ventures are driving change in good and interesting ways.  I'm also excited about the conversation that these ventures are simulating.  I'm just wondering if what was originally a very open model for learning is morphing into something that is more closed and what the implications for such a shift might be with regards to learning.  Ultimately, I think there is a big question about whether initiatives like Coursera are truly creating new powerful models for learning or if we are simply creating "massive online courses" (dropping the open) and from our experience with those in the late 1990's I'm not sure it will result in the level of change we might all desire.

I'd love to hear other opinions and thoughts.

Josh
-----------------------------
Joshua Baron
Senior Academic Technology Officer
Marist College
Poughkeepsie, New York  12601
(845) 575-3623 (work)
Twitter: JoshBaron ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

As someone who has taught in this format since before they were called MOOCs, I would answer: No. I've explained my thinking here - http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2436 David
Hi Josh,

You raise very important points.

I do believe that you are correct:  MOOCs were intended as a way to openly share knowledge and work so that learners, wherever and however those learners were defined, could participate in a common learning experience. 

I'm tempted to say that we have been doing this kind of work in in higher education for years (e.g correspondence courses, TV broadcast of produced courses), although new and emerging technologies certainly allow greater capacity to mass, share and remix information. 

And, yes, we should be concerned about the terms of service associated with MOOCs, as with any technology or business service in which we invest. 

I would speak, as well, to purpose.  Why, as institutions, do we want invest in the development of MOOCs?  Do we seek to expand access to knowledge, via the "MOOC as Open Education Resource"?  Are we sharing knowledge for the public good, in our responsibility to reach out to learning communities?  Are we hoping to brand our institutions in areas of excellence?  Are we seeking to market ourselves overseas, developing international reputation?  Are we promoting our exceptional faculty? 

The purpose of our investment in MOOCs help us to understand the terms and conditions that we are willing to negotiate in the development of such learning resources.

How about others?  Why is your institution investing in MOOCs?

All best,
Sharon

At 02:01 PM 7/20/2012, Josh Baron wrote:
I want to preference my question here with a couple of quick notes...

(a) Although I've been following the MOOC trend fairly closely and spent time "observing" the MITx Circuits course, I'm still very much a "learner" in this domain.

(b) Although I think there are possibly more questions than answers when it comes to MOOCs, I find some of the things they are doing very interesting/exciting and I'm also VERY happy to see higher education experiment with new models.

My understanding (but those with more experience should certainly correct me) is that the original concept of Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs) was really about creating learning communities that would openly share knowledge and work as a community to create and participate in a common learning experience.  Wikipedia notes (citing several sources) that there are four core principles associated with MOOCs, which are:

(1) The first principle is aggregation. The whole point of a MOOC is to provide a starting point for a massive amount of content to be produced in different places online, which is later aggregated as a newsletter or a web page accessible to participants on a regular basis. This is in contrast to traditional courses, where the content is prepared ahead of time.
(2) The second principle is remixing, that is, associating materials created within the course with each other and with materials elsewhere.
(3) The third principle is re-purposing of aggregated and remixed materials to suit goals of each participant.
(4) The fourth principle is feeding forward, that is, sharing of re-purposed ideas and content with other participants and the rest of the world.

[more details and citations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course]

When one considers these four principles they seem to center around, at least for me, core concepts that closely align with things such as Open Educational Resources and the other "flavors" of openness which have been developing over the past decade or so.  For example, these principles focus on things such as:  (a) content is produced as part of the course, not prepared ahead of time; (b) content is remixed, both within the course and with content outside the course;  and (c) content, particularly remixed and re-purposed content, is shared among participants and, importantly, with the rest of the world.

As I explored the Coursera site and considered signing up for a course I decided to take a look (as I'm sure we all do ;-)) at the Terms of Service ( https://www.coursera.org/about/terms) and was a little surprised to see the following:

"All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws....You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you."

In addition, they note the following related to user materials that are submitted to courses:

"With respect to User Content you submit or otherwise make available in connection with your use of the Site, and subject to the Privacy Policy, you grant Coursera and the Participating Institutions a fully transferable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, sublicense, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such User Content."

Now, I'm sure there are good legal reasons to have such statements but, at least for me, they raised some big questions about whether some of the really powerful learning that I've associated with MOOCs will come out of Coursera courses if the ability to remix and share content is limited (I'll also admit to being a little surprised that what I submit seems, if I'm reading it correct, to be then owned by Coursera).   From my participating in MOOCs I've found the contributions of students, including content they develop, and how that content is remixed to be integral to the learning experience.  If that is removed will the learning experience be the same?   I've also felt that a powerful outcome of MOOCs could be the establishment of a sustainable learning community that would "survive" the course and continue to engage in learning together...but I wonder if that would happen without the open sharing and remixing of content?

Again, I am a big fan of change in higher education and I think Coursera and other similar ventures are driving change in good and interesting ways.  I'm also excited about the conversation that these ventures are simulating.  I'm just wondering if what was originally a very open model for learning is morphing into something that is more closed and what the implications for such a shift might be with regards to learning.  Ultimately, I think there is a big question about whether initiatives like Coursera are truly creating new powerful models for learning or if we are simply creating "massive online courses" (dropping the open) and from our experience with those in the late 1990's I'm not sure it will result in the level of change we might all desire.

I'd love to hear other opinions and thoughts.

Josh
-----------------------------
Joshua Baron
Senior Academic Technology Officer
Marist College
Poughkeepsie, New York  12601
(845) 575-3623 (work)
Twitter: JoshBaron ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Sharon P. Pitt
Executive Director
Division of Instructional Technology
George Mason University

416 Innovation Hall
MS 1F3
Fairfax, VA  22030
703.993.3178 (W)
703.993.4544 (F)
spitt@gmu.edu

http://doit.gmu.edu







********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Sharon - Great post and excellent question. I would be interested to hear the rationale. Perhaps the folks on the Blended and Online Learning CG (http://www.educause.edu/discuss/teaching-and-learning/blended-and-online...) could offer a few reasons why as well? Take care, Patrick || |||| ||| || | | || ||| || ||| || | | ||| || ||| || Patrick Masson Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President 333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 (774) 455-7615: Office (774) 455-7620: Fax (970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice UMOLPatMasson: AIM massonpj: Skype Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com ________________________________________
Well timed, Patrick, as I just offered a summary on this topic to my SUNY colleagues yesterday. Here it is for broader comment and input:

Given the recent media fascination with MOOCS, this sequence is particularly relevent:

 

First, a NYT op ed piece from a UVa faculty member on why large scale f2f lectures are superior to online (stop giggling and read it, and recall one of the criticisms levelled at the UVa president was reticence to enter online learning):

 

 

Joshua Kim crafts a fine rebuttal and delineates between the "typical" online course and the MOOC experience:

 

Kim further expands the differerences between MOOCs and established online courses here:

 

Based on my own experience to date, it's also important to differentiate a true MOOC from an open enrollment online course, to wit:

 

Downe's upcoming MOOC co-sponsored by D2L:

likely to be a MOOC in the pure connectivist/constructivst nature (though interesting that he's teamed with D2L)

 

Seimens'  and Downes' PLENK2010 MOOC on personal learning environments- clearly a MOOC in terms of its amorphous structure and lack of explicit learning goals.

 

Various Coursera courses I've sampled and failed to complete: open enrollment, but not MOOCs. Clearly stated learning outcomes (behavioral/cognitivist approach) and fairly traditional assessment activities.

 

Power Searching with Google - really just another Coursera course with the high profile Google name brand. Unit level assessments, a mid-term and a final. Definitely not a MOOC.

 

Bonk's open course for Blackboard - not a MOOC, for reasons cited above. I didn't really get to debate this with Curt when I saw him at BbWorld, but I did suggest that the concept of an "anchored space" could be a differentiator for a MOOC. The leading MOOC proponents tend to shy away from the LMS as the learner's anchor point.

 

Lastly, Downes' own words on MOOC characteristics:


Greg 
--
Greg Ketcham
Assistant Director, Distance Learning
Division of Extended Learning
SUNY Oswego
voice: (315)312-2270
fax:     (315)312-3078
********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

I think some of the answers with regards to openness have to do with your perspective. From a student's perspective, I would venture to guess that Coursera is considered as open as many of the openly licensed courses. That is that the access to the knowledge is the same. I have participated in Coursera courses, and have found them to be an exceptional experience. The forums are open, that is there are no questions that students have to respond to; rather the threads are created by the students themselves. Some are invitations to study groups based on language, many are complaints or questions, some are ad-hoc discussions around the information in the course and a genuine sharing. I found that the instructor(s) paid attention to what was in the forums, and even made changes to the course in response to the feedback from students.  Additionally, in the HCI course Coursera began piloting peer and self assessment. These assessments required students, first, to practice grading using the rubric for the assignment.  There was a requirement to score 3 correctly or score a minimum of 8 projects. There was feedback to help you understand where your grade differed from the grade you should've assigned.   Additionally, the instructors monitored the comments in the forums regarding the assessments (there were several assignments that required them). The instructorsmade some changes to this as we went along, but I suspect future uses of this will be even better. Every time I submitted an assignment  I was asked to check off whether I want to share my work or not--that is allow Coursera to use it; I could participate in the forums anonymously if I chose. Coursera (and EdX) are new ventures, and I would guess they are monitoring everything outside and inside and will make changes accordingly.

Education has always been somewhat elitist--providing knowledge based on criteria: money, circumstances, prior experience, scores on tests, recommendations...and on and on... So, access to free courses, and with assessments,  without pre-reqs etc, is open. It may not be "open" as defined by licensing, but it is open as defined by access--which is how the word has historically been used in reference to education.  Whether the materials are copyrighted or not is probably nott as important to the students who desperately need the knowledge, as some of us in the world of openness might like to believe--at least that is the feedback I've gotten from individuals I know are accessing these courses.

I think it is important to pay attention to the qualifier that appears after "open" when we are speaking about openness.

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



Greg, Thanks for this. I think I might have not included the original question put out there by Sharon Pitt of George Mason University... "Why, as institutions, do we want invest in the development of MOOCs? Do we seek to expand access to knowledge, via the "MOOC as Open Education Resource"? Are we sharing knowledge for the public good, in our responsibility to reach out to learning communities? Are we hoping to brand our institutions in areas of excellence? Are we seeking to market ourselves overseas, developing international reputation? Are we promoting our exceptional faculty? Why is your institution investing in MOOCs?" There have been quite a few comments, articles, tweets, blogs, emails, etc. about the value, benefits, legitimacy, feasibility, etc. of "The MOOC." But, at the end of the day, "why is your institution investing in MOOC's?" Thanks, Patrick || |||| ||| || | | || ||| || ||| || | | ||| || ||| || Patrick Masson Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President 333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 (774) 455-7615: Office (774) 455-7620: Fax (970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice UMOLPatMasson: AIM massonpj: Skype Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com ________________________________________
One of the reasons is that they are believed to lead a student to officially enroll and/or increased student enrollments in general. In other words, that they provide a sort of taster session. I suspect it also gets the name of the institution out there in a realm that typical advertising doesn't reach. With that said, I'm not sure how many of these are truly begun as an institutional directive/vision as much as they are begun by instructors who have their own personal reasons for offering them--and the institution simply nods approvingly.

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



I haven’t been following this discussion closely due to having some pretty smokin’ irons in the fire this week. But in a conversation here in Montana a couple weeks ago, I suggested that from at least one perspective, MOOCs are basically the same thing as branded ball caps or football jerseys for geeks . . . a little branded piece of an elite institution that is as valuable for the brand as for the rest of the experience. I’m not certain how far that business model of giving it away would carry most public institutions. I know that makes me sound old and cynical, but I guess I am.

 

Peg Wherry

Director of Online and Distance Learning

Extended University Montana State University

128 EPS Building, P. O. Box 173860

Bozeman, MT 59717-3860

Tel (406) 994-6685

Fax (406) 994-7856

margaret.wherry@montana.edu

http://eu.montana.edu

 

Hi all,

by Sharon Pitt of George Mason University:
"Why, as institutions, do we want invest in the development of MOOCs?  Do we seek to expand access to knowledge, via the "MOOC as Open Education Resource"?  Are we sharing knowledge for the public good, in our responsibility to reach out to learning communities?  Are we hoping to brand our institutions in areas of excellence?  Are we seeking to market ourselves overseas, developing international reputation?  Are we promoting our exceptional faculty?"


In short, yes. If I had to add to that, I'd say faculty are interested in the larger dialog and reach, potential for educational research, and because we already have a large base of content to share. 


Hi all,

Seems like MOOCs are like punk rock. Born with a certain  philosophy and goals, created, played and lived in a certain way, only to be branched off into many different sub-genres, some more commercial, some less, and all with their own audience and so on, all calling the others poseurs? So why can't a Coursera course be a MOOC? Because it has state learning objectives, pre-prepared content, and traditional assessments? Like many memes, MOOCs have already proceeded into the early middle part of the curve - where people are still debating what is and is not a MOOC, at the same time as many varieties and off-shoots are arising, most of which at least share part if not most of the spirit of the original?

So I've enrolled in a Coursera course - and while there is content (videos mostly), quizzes, assignments, and so on, there are also students starting Facebook study groups, proposing Grooveshark and YouTube collective playlists, Google+ Hangouts and any number of other things arising from the students. So even if the course was not designed to have all of that form of aggregated openness, it can emerge. This course contains lots of links to YouTube videos as well, so I could definitely do some mashups and remixes (as long as those resources have the correct licensing). 
As for content and remixing, it should be noted that the content is licensed to the institution (at least in our case) - so it follows our institutional licensing. So I don't think it's safe to put all of Coursera into one bucket. 

Also, in terms of openness, it's important again to see things as a continuum. Most content/courses are not open or not, there are multiple levels. Looking at the (early in development) Openness Maturity Model (https://wiki.jasig.org/display/2398/Openness+Maturity+Model) one might say that the Coursera course I'm taking is at level 1 or possibly 2, but it still falls into that continuum somewhere.

I guess I'm not convinced by either Greg or Josh's posts that what I experience in Coursera can't fall under the larger MOOC umbrella. Is it the pure punk rock of the original MOOC as defined by Siemens et al? Perhaps not, but I would still say it is massive, open (to at least a certain extent), online, and a course.

Best,
Clark


From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gregory Ketcham [greg.ketcham@OSWEGO.EDU]https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/ellipsis.png); background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; height: 8px; opacity: 0.3; width: 20px; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; ">

Various Coursera courses I've sampled and failed to complete: open enrollment, but not MOOCs. Clearly stated learning outcomes (behavioral/cognitivist approach) and fairly traditional assessment activities.


At 02:01 PM 7/20/2012, Josh Baron wrote:

(1) The first principle is aggregation. The whole point of a MOOC is to provide a starting point for a massive amount of content to be produced in different places online, which is later aggregated as a newsletter or a web page accessible to participants on a regular basis. This is in contrast to traditional courses, where the content is prepared ahead of time.
(2) The second principle is remixing, that is, associating materials created within the course with each other and with materials elsewhere.
(3) The third principle is re-purposing of aggregated and remixed materials to suit goals of each participant.
(4) The fourth principle is feeding forward, that is, sharing of re-purposed ideas and content with other participants and the rest of the world.

[more details and citations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course]

When one considers these four principles they seem to center around, at least for me, core concepts that closely align with things such as Open Educational Resources and the other "flavors" of openness which have been developing over the past decade or so.  For example, these principles focus on things such as:  (a) content is produced as part of the course, not prepared ahead of time; (b) content is remixed, both within the course and with content outside the course;  and (c) content, particularly remixed and re-purposed content, is shared among participants and, importantly, with the rest of the world.

As I explored the Coursera site and considered signing up for a course I decided to take a look (as I'm sure we all do ;-)) at the Terms of Service ( https://www.coursera.org/about/terms) and was a little surprised to see the following:

"All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws....You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you."

In addition, they note the following related to user materials that are submitted to courses:

"With respect to User Content you submit or otherwise make available in connection with your use of the Site, and subject to the Privacy Policy, you grant Coursera and the Participating Institutions a fully transferable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, sublicense, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such User Content."

Now, I'm sure there are good legal reasons to have such statements but, at least for me, they raised some big questions about whether some of the really powerful learning that I've associated with MOOCs will come out of Coursera courses if the ability to remix and share content is limited (I'll also admit to being a little surprised that what I submit seems, if I'm reading it correct, to be then owned by Coursera).   From my participating in MOOCs I've found the contributions of students, including content they develop, and how that content is remixed to be integral to the learning experience.  If that is removed will the learning experience be the same?   I've also felt that a powerful outcome of MOOCs could be the establishment of a sustainable learning community that would "survive" the course and continue to engage in learning together...but I wonder if that would happen without the open sharing and remixing of content?

Again, I am a big fan of change in higher education and I think Coursera and other similar ventures are driving change in good and interesting ways.  I'm also excited about the conversation that these ventures are simulating.  I'm just wondering if what was originally a very open model for learning is morphing into something that is more closed and what the implications for such a shift might be with regards to learning.  Ultimately, I think there is a big question about whether initiatives like Coursera are truly creating new powerful models for learning or if we are simply creating "massive online courses" (dropping the open) and from our experience with those in the late 1990's I'm not sure it will result in the level of change we might all desire.
Clark Shah-Nelson
Sr. Instructional Designer, Center for Teaching and Learning
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
111 Market Pl. Ste. 830 Baltimore, MD 21202
voice/SMS: +1-410-929-0070 --- IM, Skype, Twitter: clarkshahnelson


And this edupunk says Amen!  :)

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



From:        Clark Shah-Nelson <clarkshahnelson@GMAIL.COM>
To:        BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU,
Date:        07/24/2012 04:07 PM
Subject:        Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] [CIO] Are Coursera Courses Really MOOCs?
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



Hi all,

Seems like MOOCs are like punk rock. Born with a certain  philosophy and goals, created, played and lived in a certain way, only to be branched off into many different sub-genres, some more commercial, some less, and all with their own audience and so on, all calling the others poseurs? So why can't a Coursera course be a MOOC? Because it has state learning objectives, pre-prepared content, and traditional assessments? Like many memes, MOOCs have already proceeded into the early middle part of the curve - where people are still debating what is and is not a MOOC, at the same time as many varieties and off-shoots are arising, most of which at least share part if not most of the spirit of the original?

So I've enrolled in a Coursera course - and while there is content (videos mostly), quizzes, assignments, and so on, there are also students starting Facebook study groups, proposing Grooveshark and YouTube collective playlists, Google+ Hangouts and any number of other things arising from the students. So even if the course was not designed to have all of that form of aggregated openness, it can emerge. This course contains lots of links to YouTube videos as well, so I could definitely do some mashups and remixes (as long as those resources have the correct licensing). 
As for content and remixing, it should be noted that the content is licensed to the institution (at least in our case) - so it follows our institutional licensing. So I don't think it's safe to put all of Coursera into one bucket. 

Also, in terms of openness, it's important again to see things as a continuum. Most content/courses are not open or not, there are multiple levels. Looking at the (early in development) Openness Maturity Model (https://wiki.jasig.org/display/2398/Openness+Maturity+Model) one might say that the Coursera course I'm taking is at level 1 or possibly 2, but it still falls into that continuum somewhere.

I guess I'm not convinced by either Greg or Josh's posts that what I experience in Coursera can't fall under the larger MOOC umbrella. Is it the pure punk rock of the original MOOC as defined by Siemens et al? Perhaps not, but I would still say it is massive, open (to at least a certain extent), online, and a course.

Best,
Clark


From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gregory Ketcham [greg.ketcham@OSWEGO.EDU]

Various Coursera courses I've sampled and failed to complete: open enrollment, but not MOOCs. Clearly stated learning outcomes (behavioral/cognitivist approach) and fairly traditional assessment activities.


At 02:01 PM 7/20/2012, Josh Baron wrote:

(1) The first principle is aggregation. The whole point of a MOOC is to provide a starting point for a massive amount of content to be produced in different places online, which is later aggregated as a newsletter or a web page accessible to participants on a regular basis. This is in contrast to traditional courses, where the content is prepared ahead of time.
(2) The second principle is remixing, that is, associating materials created within the course with each other and with materials elsewhere.
(3) The third principle is re-purposing of aggregated and remixed materials to suit goals of each participant.
(4) The fourth principle is feeding forward, that is, sharing of re-purposed ideas and content with other participants and the rest of the world.

[more details and citations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course]

When one considers these four principles they seem to center around, at least for me, core concepts that closely align with things such as Open Educational Resources and the other "flavors" of openness which have been developing over the past decade or so.  For example, these principles focus on things such as:  (a) content is produced as part of the course, not prepared ahead of time; (b) content is remixed, both within the course and with content outside the course;  and (c) content, particularly remixed and re-purposed content, is shared among participants and, importantly, with the rest of the world.

As I explored the Coursera site and considered signing up for a course I decided to take a look (as I'm sure we all do ;-)) at the Terms of Service ( https://www.coursera.org/about/terms) and was a little surprised to see the following:

"All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws....You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you."

In addition, they note the following related to user materials that are submitted to courses:

"With respect to User Content you submit or otherwise make available in connection with your use of the Site, and subject to the Privacy Policy, you grant Coursera and the Participating Institutions a fully transferable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, sublicense, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such User Content."

Now, I'm sure there are good legal reasons to have such statements but, at least for me, they raised some big questions about whether some of the really powerful learning that I've associated with MOOCs will come out of Coursera courses if the ability to remix and share content is limited (I'll also admit to being a little surprised that what I submit seems, if I'm reading it correct, to be then owned by Coursera).   From my participating in MOOCs I've found the contributions of students, including content they develop, and how that content is remixed to be integral to the learning experience.  If that is removed will the learning experience be the same?   I've also felt that a powerful outcome of MOOCs could be the establishment of a sustainable learning community that would "survive" the course and continue to engage in learning together...but I wonder if that would happen without the open sharing and remixing of content?

Again, I am a big fan of change in higher education and I think Coursera and other similar ventures are driving change in good and interesting ways.  I'm also excited about the conversation that these ventures are simulating.  I'm just wondering if what was originally a very open model for learning is morphing into something that is more closed and what the implications for such a shift might be with regards to learning.  Ultimately, I think there is a big question about whether initiatives like Coursera are truly creating new powerful models for learning or if we are simply creating "massive online courses" (dropping the open) and from our experience with those in the late 1990's I'm not sure it will result in the level of change we might all desire.
Clark Shah-Nelson
Sr. Instructional Designer, Center for Teaching and Learning
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
111 Market Pl. Ste. 830 Baltimore, MD 21202
clarkshahnelson@gmail.com
voice/SMS: +1-410-929-0070 --- IM, Skype, Twitter: clarkshahnelson
fax#: +1-270-514-0112
http://clarkshahnelson.com



I've been in this really good MOOC for the past 20 years, it called the "Internet." My Top 5 Mooc's 5. http://bit.ly/NjYKOb 4. http://bit.ly/Nk0gQ9 3. http://bit.ly/NjZ8Mq 2. http://bit.ly/NjZoek 1. http://bit.ly/N5cal5 Now that's anarchy! || |||| ||| || | | || ||| || ||| || | | ||| || ||| || Patrick Masson Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President 333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 (774) 455-7615: Office (774) 455-7620: Fax (970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice UMOLPatMasson: AIM massonpj: Skype Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com ________________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clark Shah-Nelson [clarkshahnelson@GMAIL.COM] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 4:07 PM To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] [CIO] Are Coursera Courses Really MOOCs? Hi all, Seems like MOOCs are like punk rock. Born with a certain philosophy and goals, created, played and lived in a certain way, only to be branched off into many different sub-genres, some more commercial, some less, and all with their own audience and so on, all calling the others poseurs? So why can't a Coursera course be a MOOC? Because it has state learning objectives, pre-prepared content, and traditional assessments? Like many memes, MOOCs have already proceeded into the early middle part of the curve - where people are still debating what is and is not a MOOC, at the same time as many varieties and off-shoots are arising, most of which at least share part if not most of the spirit of the original? So I've enrolled in a Coursera course - and while there is content (videos mostly), quizzes, assignments, and so on, there are also students starting Facebook study groups, proposing Grooveshark and YouTube collective playlists, Google+ Hangouts and any number of other things arising from the students. So even if the course was not designed to have all of that form of aggregated openness, it can emerge. This course contains lots of links to YouTube videos as well, so I could definitely do some mashups and remixes (as long as those resources have the correct licensing). As for content and remixing, it should be noted that the content is licensed to the institution (at least in our case) - so it follows our institutional licensing. So I don't think it's safe to put all of Coursera into one bucket. Also, in terms of openness, it's important again to see things as a continuum. Most content/courses are not open or not, there are multiple levels. Looking at the (early in development) Openness Maturity Model (https://wiki.jasig.org/display/2398/Openness+Maturity+Model) one might say that the Coursera course I'm taking is at level 1 or possibly 2, but it still falls into that continuum somewhere. I guess I'm not convinced by either Greg or Josh's posts that what I experience in Coursera can't fall under the larger MOOC umbrella. Is it the pure punk rock of the original MOOC as defined by Siemens et al? Perhaps not, but I would still say it is massive, open (to at least a certain extent), online, and a course. Best, Clark From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gregory Ketcham [greg.ketcham@OSWEGO.EDU][https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif] Various Coursera courses I've sampled and failed to complete: open enrollment, but not MOOCs. Clearly stated learning outcomes (behavioral/cognitivist approach) and fairly traditional assessment activities. At 02:01 PM 7/20/2012, Josh Baron wrote: (1) The first principle is aggregation. The whole point of a MOOC is to provide a starting point for a massive amount of content to be produced in different places online, which is later aggregated as a newsletter or a web page accessible to participants on a regular basis. This is in contrast to traditional courses, where the content is prepared ahead of time. (2) The second principle is remixing, that is, associating materials created within the course with each other and with materials elsewhere. (3) The third principle is re-purposing of aggregated and remixed materials to suit goals of each participant. (4) The fourth principle is feeding forward, that is, sharing of re-purposed ideas and content with other participants and the rest of the world. [more details and citations are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course] When one considers these four principles they seem to center around, at least for me, core concepts that closely align with things such as Open Educational Resources and the other "flavors" of openness which have been developing over the past decade or so. For example, these principles focus on things such as: (a) content is produced as part of the course, not prepared ahead of time; (b) content is remixed, both within the course and with content outside the course; and (c) content, particularly remixed and re-purposed content, is shared among participants and, importantly, with the rest of the world. As I explored the Coursera site and considered signing up for a course I decided to take a look (as I'm sure we all do ;-)) at the Terms of Service ( https://www.coursera.org/about/terms) and was a little surprised to see the following: "All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws....You may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material, nor may you modify or create derivatives works of the material. The burden of determining that your use of any information, software or any other content on the Site is permissible rests with you." In addition, they note the following related to user materials that are submitted to courses: "With respect to User Content you submit or otherwise make available in connection with your use of the Site, and subject to the Privacy Policy, you grant Coursera and the Participating Institutions a fully transferable, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to use, distribute, sublicense, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such User Content." Now, I'm sure there are good legal reasons to have such statements but, at least for me, they raised some big questions about whether some of the really powerful learning that I've associated with MOOCs will come out of Coursera courses if the ability to remix and share content is limited (I'll also admit to being a little surprised that what I submit seems, if I'm reading it correct, to be then owned by Coursera). From my participating in MOOCs I've found the contributions of students, including content they develop, and how that content is remixed to be integral to the learning experience. If that is removed will the learning experience be the same? I've also felt that a powerful outcome of MOOCs could be the establishment of a sustainable learning community that would "survive" the course and continue to engage in learning together...but I wonder if that would happen without the open sharing and remixing of content? Again, I am a big fan of change in higher education and I think Coursera and other similar ventures are driving change in good and interesting ways. I'm also excited about the conversation that these ventures are simulating. I'm just wondering if what was originally a very open model for learning is morphing into something that is more closed and what the implications for such a shift might be with regards to learning. Ultimately, I think there is a big question about whether initiatives like Coursera are truly creating new powerful models for learning or if we are simply creating "massive online courses" (dropping the open) and from our experience with those in the late 1990's I'm not sure it will result in the level of change we might all desire. Clark Shah-Nelson Sr. Instructional Designer, Center for Teaching and Learning Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health 111 Market Pl. Ste. 830 Baltimore, MD 21202 clarkshahnelson@gmail.com voice/SMS: +1-410-929-0070 --- IM, Skype, Twitter: clarkshahnelson fax#: +1-270-514-0112 http://clarkshahnelson.com

This raises so many issues! I'll jump in on three.

Venture-capital backed free online courses may have stolen the moniker "MOOC", but doesn't make them even slightly Open, let alone Massively so. As a pragmatist I'm prepared to yield the name, but not the principle. 

First, I suggest that we all need to be more concerned about openwashing, neatly defined by Audrey Watters as "having an appearance of open-source and open-licensing for marketing purposes, while continuing proprietary practices"; also see her related blog post

Second, we're not all MOOC investors/creators. I work at a small school. We have modest means and a limited capacity to invest in MOOCs. We may however see a big impact from them. We're starting to see credits and credentials being connected to MOOC participation, a trend that institutionalizes MOOCs as a cheap way of getting credit. I feel certain that this trend will continue, and I am very interested in the difference between a degree made up of a collection of MOOCs—the ultimate swirl?—and something that we might have thought of, at some former time, as a 'college experience'—whatever that is or was, and however it was related to a degree. We support swirl; the vast majority of our undergrads are completing degrees they started elsewhere. We're not so sure about MOOCs. The point is that these free online courses are just one more logical step in a direction we've been heading for a long time, as higher ed stopped being primarily an immersion experience for 18-to-22-year-olds.

Third, many (perhaps most) of us have reason to be scared. As colleges and universities we deliver a lot of services, but with few exceptions what we charge for is the credit hour. The MOOC-like entities, whatever they are, are effectively making credit hours free or nearly so. They do this in a number of ways, including by not offering any of our other services (those ones we don't charge for).  How does this not massively undermine our business model, and what value is there in the other things we do? This is a classic unbundling phenomenon (and a nice example of "disruptive innovation", too). Depending on what you believe about education (and your pay check), this may be a natural and positive development in the marketplace, or a catastrophe of epic proportions. Or both.

Ethan




——
Ethan Benatan, Ph.D.
Vice President for IT & 
Chief Information Officer
503.699.6325   

MARYLHURST UNIVERSITY
You. Unlimited.



I still turn turn to the Clash and the Sex Pistols before Green Day. Now, Social D, that's another story :-)

In attempting to address the question of why colleges might consider a MOOC, Jim Farmer presents an excellent synopsis of how open enrollment serves a continuum of student needs in the Open University of the Netherlands:


If the presentation of the course content inverts- and I know some colleagues are examining this - then the multiple points of entry and engagement could move traditionally "closed" online courses to an open access model.

regards,
Greg



What's also useful to consider in this conversation is how higher ed will evaluate a MOOC for consideration of prior learning assessment towards degree credit. Will there be any standardization to qualify MOOCs in general as formal learning on par with other recognized/accredited institutions?

Granite State College has a strong history of PLA in its Individualized Studies department, and the many flavors of MOOC make this a challenge for us to synthesize into college credit for competencies. Does having taken the MOOC but not paying for certification count towards PLA? Is this opening up a new Digital Divide? The burden of evaluating qualified credit appears to be heavily laden on the credit-bearing institution, at this stage.

[Note: today's Chronicle's article: http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/good-moocs-bad-moocs ] 

thx - Steve, who is more partial The DKs, Black Flag, and Minor Threat. 

-- 
Steve Covello
Rich Media Specialist
603-513-1346
Skype: steve.granitestate
Scheduling: tungle.me/steve.granitestate
We’re moving! As of July 1, 2012 the new address will be:
Granite State College, 25 Hall Street Concord, NH 03301


From: Gregory Ketcham <greg.ketcham@OSWEGO.EDU>
Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:53:34 -0400
To: <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] [CIO] Are Coursera Courses Really MOOCs?

I still turn turn to the Clash and the Sex Pistols before Green Day. Now, Social D, that's another story :-)

In attempting to address the question of why colleges might consider a MOOC, Jim Farmer presents an excellent synopsis of how open enrollment serves a continuum of student needs in the Open University of the Netherlands:


If the presentation of the course content inverts- and I know some colleagues are examining this - then the multiple points of entry and engagement could move traditionally "closed" online courses to an open access model.

regards,
Greg



There's an explosion of discussion on the success models, both financial and credit - knowledge assessment.  Another article today -


http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/02/conventional-online-universities-consider-strategic-response-moocs

Universities are considering their path and strategic response to free online courses. 


Theresa